DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Supreme Court: Alabama must allow same-sex marriages, Alabama counties refuse

A theocracy is an entire system of government, this is one law, it's not a theocracy. It's not a theocracy any more than Obama raising taxes 2% makes us socialists.

And, for the record, there are a number of people with no religious affiliation who make arguments against gay marriage as well. Yes the majority are religious, but not all.


That discussion has been had on here many times. As long as it's not a vital service, what is the problem? Two questions:
1. Why should a business be forced to go against it's religious beliefs to cater to a subset of the population?
2. Why would you want somebody who totally disagrees with you to provide services for you when other options are available of people who would be happy to have your business?

99% religious dogma, 1% political ideology dogma.

0% rationality.

Link please? Aren't you (yes) the guy dogging others for links?

We can specifically identify theocracy or plutocracy and find examples in this government and the likelihood of that is more than the reality of, "I'm just ever so thankful that all he did was take illicit pictures up the skirt of a teenager and not violate her civil rights in such a heinous way as asking her to drive by a nativity scene at Christmas or anything. Because that.. now that is just flat out unacceptable, it could scar her for life, and requires the full attention of the media and the ACLU... this? Yea, whatever. At least some states are able to keep things in perspective".

Why should a business be forced to serve black people if it's they believe that blacks are less human than whites are? Just as atheists can be opposed to gay marriage racial prejudice can sometimes be connected to religious beliefs.

I think the debate will go deeper than simplistic. Hobby Lobby already created a precedent so I'm interested to see what happens when lawyers get involved.

One day, someone said to me that the Government was talking of legalizing Gay marriage. They asked me what I thought and I replied, "I dunno, I have to think about it." I was immediately called a Homophobe. Huh? Whats a Homophobe?

I began to think of my history with the Homosexual community which began around 1979. My Dad was a big time businessman so he had friends and clients who where Gay, one from Chicago and three or four from NY. They seemed like nice enough guys, went out to dinner with them, had a few beers with them, like I said, nice guys.

Next thing I knew, around 1982, the one from Chicago died. A healthy young man, 30ish.
Then 2 from NY were dead. What the Hell?

Next...

At the beginning of the 1980s various reports began to emerge in California and New York of a small number of men who had been diagnosed with rare forms of cancer and/or pneumonia. The cancer, Kaposi’s Sarcoma, normally only affected elderly men of Mediterranean or Jewish heritage and young adult African men. The pneumonia, Pneumocystis Pneumonia Carinii (PCP), is generally only found in individuals with seriously compromised immune systems. However, the men were young and had previously been in relatively good health. The only other characteristic that connected them was that they were all gay.

The first official documentation of the condition was published by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on 5th June 1981. Entitled “Pneumocystis Pneumonia – Los Angeles”, the report detailed the cases of five young gay men hospitalised with serious PCP, cytomegalovirus, and disseminated candida infections.

“I heard on UPI, it was like a paragraph or two, a very short report from the Centers for Disease Control that there was a new phenomenon of people dying of an unusual pneumonia, and they happen to be homosexual.” - Hank Wilson, living in San Francisco.

Almost a month after the CDC’s announcement, the New York Times reported that a total of 41 homosexual men had been diagnosed with Kaposi’s Sarcoma, eight of whom had died less than 24 months after the diagnosis was made.

At the end of 1981, 5 to 6 new cases of the disease were being reported each week.

By 1982 the condition had acquired a number of names - GRID 5 (gay-related immune deficiency), ‘gay cancer’, ‘community-acquired immune dysfunction’ and ‘gay compromise syndrome’.

By June, 355 cases of Kaposi’s Sarcoma and/or serious opportunistic infections in previously healthy young people had been reported to the CDC. A total of 20 states had reported cases and the disease was no longer solely affecting gay men; there were a small number of cases among heterosexual men and women. Over half of those identified as heterosexual had used intravenous drugs at some point.

It was not until July at a meeting in Washington, D.C., that the acronym AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) was suggested. The CDC used the term for the first time in September 1982, when it reported that an average of one to two cases of AIDS were being diagnosed in the USA every day.

In December the CDC reported that three heterosexual haemophiliacs had died after developing PCP and other opportunistic infections. There was nothing to suggest that the patients had acquired AIDS through homosexual contact, or intravenous drug use. What was significant was that all of the patients had received Factor VIII concentrates – a blood transfusion product made by pooling blood from hundreds of donors.

The CDC also began to receive reports of AIDS amongst a small number of migrants from the Caribbean island of Haiti. In the popular press, AIDS had become a disease of the “four H club” – homosexuals, heroin addicts, haemophiliacs and Haitians – even though there had been cases among people who did not fall into one of these groups.

The inclusion of Haitians as a risk group caused much controversy. Haitian Americans complained of stigmatisation, officials accused the CDC of racism, and Haiti suffered a serious blow to its tourism industry
- See more at: http://www.avert.org/history-hiv-aids-usa.htm#sthash.CFEB9B3d.dpuf

So that is my History with the Gay community. It has brought me to this point- Gay people are the same as us only Gay. I don't care what they do in privacy and Gay marriage is fine for them. I don't really care.

But it didn't end there. I was still a Homophobe and Bigot because I did not accept the practice of Homosexual sex. I find it disgusting, dangerous and an affront to my religious beliefs. It is a sin. I can't support it.

But it does still bring a choke to my throat when I remember those nice young men with whom I had beers and discussed football, rest their souls.

40...

Did you write that?

If not, who did?

What is his name, who published his work, and how can I verify that this is indeed his work, without biased edits on your part?

Refs, can we please make an effort to ramp up enforcement of citation standards?

I will donate $25 to the site right now if someone says we can.

(BTW, where is the PayPal button on this newfangled doo dad?)

Yea, I wrote it with the history of aids inserted in the middle because that is actually what I lived at the time.

Sooooo...
SHAD APP U!

You seriously wrote that? Every word of that is your own?

If that is true, I will walk back some criticisms I've made of you.

You must have missed the last line of my follow up post though.

It was "SHAD APP U!".

On paper it looked to be something akin to a Muslim chant, and as you know, I'm not the religious type.

No it isn't. It's an added dimension for many but that isn't the basis of the argument against it. The basis of the argument against it is that it is a state's right issue.

The federal courts have ruled that it is within their realm. They are taking up the case when they shouldn't be and it's a clear example of judicial overreach. It's a clear violation of state jurisdiction and it only occurs because state's haven't pushed back very much, until now. The majority of jurisdictions in Alabama are rejecting the federal court.



It isn't a civil rights issue. It never was. Nice try with that angle though. Nobody is being denied the chance to marry. Don't like Alabama's marriage laws, move to a jurisdiction that has laws to your liking.



We did? Over gay marriage? When did this happen? Must have happened while I was at work.



No it isn't a matter of time at this point. I beg to differ, actually. I could see a push by state's to go the Article V route and give the proverbial middle finger to the SCOTUS.

You're really not very smart, are you? I think you'd be alright with all of those things and you'd be all for crucifixion too.

What the real issue is, is whether the laws that prohibit gay marriage are discriminatory or not. If the SCOTUS determines that in fact it is a civil rights infraction to keep gay marriage banned, it's a national issue, not a states issue.

That's why we have such huge disagreements. States can not constitute laws that discriminate against a persons right not to be discriminated against.

I'm sure that bridge will be crossed soon enough. So far it appears that most court rulings do sway in the direction of such laws as discriminatory.

According to your position, it would seem you indicate that laws ruled discriminatory against certain groups of people are not covered according to federal law. I believe that's an issue that was settled in this country long ago.

No it isn't. Tell me how the SCOTUS or the federal government can enforce marriage on a state? Even now, state's don't have to recognize heterosexual marriages that don't meet their laws.

For example, in one state, marriage laws permit the age of consent to be 15. A 15-y.o. gets married in that state and the newlyweds move to a state that has a age of consent limit of 17. The new state of residence does not have to recognize the marriage of the state where the couple were married. Period.



They're not being discriminated against. They are defining marriage and who (or what) can get married or how many can get married. Can we have marriages or three or more people? What is the limit? Can a brother & sister marry? Can parents marry their offspring? Tell me where you wish to draw the line? The minute you tell me where you're drawing a line, you've defeated your own argument.



You discriminate all the time. You make decisions all the time and when you do, you've discriminated against something else. It doesn't matter what the object of discrimination is. You choose what banking or financial institution to open an account at. You choose what and where to eat your meals. You choose what type of car to drive. You choose whether you will turn on the radio as you drive down the road or not - and if you do listen, you discriminate in the kind of station you listen to.

That's a foolish argument you make, Pit. Society is built upon discriminatory decisions of this sort. Every day and by the trillions of them.

What you're seeing in Alabama with these counties are a 'We will not comply.' response to federal government overstepping their bounds. What will the federal government be able to do, force them to perform them? How? They can't force the counties to have the clerks to process marriage licenses. Even the state's themselves cannot force the counties to do so.



That isn't my position at all. My position is much simpler. The federal government has no authority in respect to marriage.

If you think it was settled long ago, then why did you even come here to discuss it?

I wouldn't, because i think all men and women should have the same liberties no matter sex, race or sexual orientation.

clearly you don't. you said over and over it's a state issue.

maybe you're not the smart one.

Anarchy is on it!

You make a good argument and your points are very interesting.
I began wondering where you were going with this and now I'm enjoying where its gone.

I never thought of this one...

For example, in one state, marriage laws permit the age of consent to be 15. A 15-y.o. gets married in that state and the newlyweds move to a state that has a age of consent limit of 17. The new state of residence does not have to recognize the marriage of the state where the couple were married. Period.

you're over here arguing about age of consent, and we are arguing about same sex marriage.

sorry but thats not the same. at all.

one can simply wait until they are old enough.

one can't wait until they are gay enough.....aight that sounds weird. but you know what I mean.

But it shows that States are not discriminating against anyone!
15 year olds can marry here but not there, Gays can't marry here but can over there! Black and White, rich and poor, Gay and Straight can marry at 15 here but not over there!

was that from a Dr. Seuss book?

I need to get that. sounds tight.

Bottom Line is, you can't say we live in a free country if there are different rules for certain groups of people. If the government accepts the tax dollars of those same groups, this shouldn't even be an issue.

Statutory rape and homosexuality are similar how, exactly?

And short of someone saying 'Your archaic views are a losing bet' and locking the thread, can anyone present a logical or reasoned argument outside of 'because it's a sin' or 'because it's always been that way' as to why homosexuals can't marry?

You see. Or, more precisely, you don't see. They are exactly the same thing argumentatively.

Actually, I don't know what you mean. I rarely understand your logic but when I do, it's you that doesn't understand your own logic.

Your theories on law remind me of when Charlie pretends to be a lawyer on "Always Sunny".

A-ha! You've hit on something but I'm not sure you realize it.

If you don't mind, I'll ask you a couple of questions about your response.

Here is my first question. Who are these certain groups of people and who is defining them as such and for what purpose?

The second question has to do with federal government involvement in the issue. Why has this become a "civil rights" issue and why is government involved in it at all?

You see, the only awkwardly tangible reason for the federal government to be involved is because of federal government creating circumstances where a perceived injustice is manufactured. That is, spouses are able to receive federal government benefits. Therefore, the federal government creates the problem by creating the government benefits.

Also, spouses generally inherit property in probate proceedings if there is no will specifying who gets what.
Of course, probated inheritance problems can be usually be avoided with a will.

Sorry to disappoint, but I don't get my views of law from a television show.

Nice try to confuse the issue. That's what I expect from you. You pretend that you're an honest intellectual. You're neither honest nor an intellectual. You're a sham artist.

Hey Anarchy...


Source

Yup...not like civil rights or anything...

How exactly am I confusing you comparing homosexuality to statutory rape?

In one instance, the harm is evident. In the other, the harm is not.

States don't get to do whatever they want. The feds have and will reign them in on civil rights issues.

I would have left much of it up to the states. This nation was founded as independent states and as the rights of those states to govern themselves has been stripped away, our nation has been worse off for it.

It would have been harder to do it my way, there would have been greater struggles and more growing pains but in the end, states would have gotten it right. Instead they were forced to do things by the federal government before they were ready to do them.. but in doing so, the federal government seized control over many other things, like education.

Similar to public education, which does not really attempt to take the best and make them really great, but rather concerns itself with making sure that everybody is average, so goes our system of governing. 50 states, each trying new things, each innovating and putting their brightest people on solving problems, some will outpace others and those states will prosper in a big way, attracting the best people, attracting more business, developing a better quality of life... but alas, the federal government controls their education, controls their transportation, controls so much that every state is limited to succeed and advance only at the level the federal government will allow, thus instead of having some states accelerating and achieving well beyond the curve and other states lagging behind, we are working as hard as we can to have 50 mediocre states.


I can care about it very deeply and want to enact change and do the right thing in my state... if Alabama isn't there yet and lags behind, that I'm less concerned about. What I don't need is the federal government stepping in and by fiat telling us all what we need to do to fix a problem that really might only exist in a few places. Because in the end, you legislate to mediocrity.

That's quite obvious for anyone not being obtuse and staying within the context of the subject.

Civil rights laws were passed that make discrimination illegal. What the courts must now decide is whether they view laws against gay marriage discriminatory.

Now my intent is not to pick a side as to what their findings will be. I'm just stating what the issue will boil down to and what it is actually about from the legal perspective. And to this point, courts have sided that it is discrimination.

Now you can take issue with that if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that this is the way the legal system and courts are viewing this issue in their decisions.

I don't make the news, I just report it.

Except that they do, in reality. It's worked that way for centuries.

If say, Montana, passed a law that said blacks can't marry whites, the federal government will most certainly step in and tell them they can't.

I believe the issue is far more subtle than that. When state governments and the federal government started differentiating within other laws, what benefits/obligations you have based on whether or not you are married, then they set up the need for them to eventually decide what marriage means and who can get married. I don't think they realized it at the time...

If the law says that if you die, your property is treated one way if you are married and a different way if you are not... or you pay X taxes if you are married and Y taxes if you are not... or you can get A insurance benefits if you are married and but you can't if you are not... Then it is only reasonable that at some point, if the benefits of being married outweigh the benefits of not being married, that non-traditional couples are going to want to get married.

There is a dichotomy between homosexuals and what a state views as consenting adults. You simplified the issue to fit into your rhetoric.

Kansas governor erases protections for LGBT state employees with executive order


(CNN)—With a swipe of his pen, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback wiped out protections offered to state employees facing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Brownback, a Republican, issued the executive order Tuesday, doing away with an order enacted by his predecessor, former Gov. Kathleen Sibelius.

In 2007 Sibelius issued an order expanding workplace protections to include lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees of the state.

Brownback, in signing his order, said this "ensures that state employees enjoy the same civil rights as all Kansans without creating additional 'protected classes' as the previous order did."

He added "the order also reaffirms our commitment to hiring, mentoring and recognizing veterans and individuals with disabilities."

LGBT groups decried the move, describing it as "foul, reckless and shameful."

Thomas Witt, executive director of Equality Kansas, said in a statement the move amounts to declaring "open season" on workplace harassment for LGBT state employees.



"If you work for the state and have felt comfortable being "out" at work knowing you had protection from bigotry, that protection is gone," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/11/politics/brownback-lgbt-executive-order/index.html

The hatred is real.

There's been a weird thing that people do recently. They blame victims for their own perceived victimization.

Why can't the governor hire veterans without removing this protection and why is it presented that LGBT people are getting "extra"?

cause according to some people, people who get discriminated against is a states issue, not a civil issue, so the governor should be allowed to decided who get's rights and who doesn't.

Brownback said Sebelius — a Democrat who went on to serve as President Barack Obama's health secretary — acted "unilaterally" with her order and that any such changes should be made by the state Legislature.

State Rep. Steve Brunk, a Wichita Republican, said Brownback simply "realigned" state government's policies with Kansas law.

abcnews.go.com › Politics

Apparently the New Republican Leadership, as promised, will undo illegal Decrees by those who thought they ruled, thus putting things back where they were, under the law. Now it is up to the States Legislature to make laws again, as it should be.

I greatly dislike the whole concept of executive orders, except in the most dire of emergencies.

According to one of the articles I read on this action, Brownback said that he wants this matter returned to the legislature so that a law can be passed, instead of relying upon an executive order. That I can agree with. However, I admit that the whole thing looks bad.

I also worry about protections by class on one basis only .... that being that if you fire a member of a protected class, you better have 10 times the documentation you do for anyone else as to the reason(s) why. Employers, whether a private employer or a the state, should have the same responsibility to their employees, whether they are gay, straight, Black, White, Male, Female or any other class.

Take the state of Ohio for example. Ohio is an "At Will" state. Employment is a contract between the employer and employee only as long as each agree to said employment. An employee can leave at any time, for any reason ..... and the employer can release an employee for any reason, at any time. (Obviously, though, Unemployment compensation can be a factor in firings without cause)

If you show up for work wearing a Steelers shirt, I can fire you for that if I choose. (though again, this would be subject to unemployment claims) If you show up for work with multi-colored hair, and I don't like that, I can fore you. However, I cannot fire you for being White, Black, Gay, Straight, Atheist, Catholic, Muslim, or any protected class. Further, if I say to a member of a protected class, "I am firing you because of this valid reason", and document the reason, I can still be subject to legal action based on EEOC rules, even if them being a member of a protected class had nothing to do with the termination. They may not win their case, but I still have to take time, and money, to defend against it.

It became a concern, so I did the vast majority and hiring of all new employees for most of my time managing my last restaurant. I created a specific interview guide, and never deviated from it. I kept the interview guides with the applications, so that if anyone ever tried to say that I asked a class type question that was illegal, I had records of our interview. When I finally allowed my co-manager to take over some of the interviewing/hiring, I insisted that he used them as well. It is not a common problem, but it is enough of a pain in the neck that it paid to have all of my bases covered in case it did happen.

I understand that we want to make sure that people are not discriminated against, bu we can also go too far in the opposite direction as well. I also think that such policies, over and above federal laws, which already cover race, age, creed, color, national origin, and sexual orientation. (EEOC has ruled that such discriminations are violations of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Law) should be carefully considered by a legislature, rather than being imposed by the stroke of a pen by one person. Are they necessary, or political in nature? Do they create new protections, or just simply overlap existing protections? I think that a case can be made that in both of those last 2 questions, the latter options would be true.